Affirmation of Election Audit Limits: Shipley v. Chicago Board of Election Commissioners

Comprehensive Commentary on 947 F.3d 1056 (7th Cir. 2020)

Introduction

The case of Shipley, Marie, and Wuthrich v. Chicago Board of Election Commissioners (947 F.3d 1056, 7th Cir. 2020) addresses critical issues surrounding post-election audits of electronic voting systems in Illinois. Plaintiffs William B. Shipley, Nina Marie, and Katherine Wuthrich, acting as election monitors and voters, alleged that fraudulent irregularities during the mandated five percent post-election audit compromised their constitutional right to vote. This comprehensive commentary dissects the court's reasoning, legal precedents, and the lasting impact of this decision on election law.

Summary of the Judgment

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims against the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. The plaintiffs asserted that the election board engaged in fraudulent practices during the post-election audit of electronic voting machines, thereby violating their right to vote under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that Illinois law explicitly prohibits post-election audit findings from altering election outcomes. The Seventh Circuit affirmed this decision, emphasizing that irrespective of any misconduct during the audit, it could not affect the plaintiffs' voting rights under state law.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that reinforce the court's decision:

  • Burkill v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992): Affirmed the fundamental nature of the right to vote.
  • REYNOLDS v. SIMS, 377 U.S. 533 (1964): Established that the right to vote includes the right to have one's vote counted.
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009): Set the standard for pleading a plausible claim under § 1983.
  • Kasper v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs of the City of Chicago, 814 F.2d 332 (7th Cir. 1987): Clarified that violations of state election laws do not automatically constitute constitutional violations.

These precedents collectively highlight the boundary between state election procedures and federal constitutional rights, emphasizing that not all irregularities translate into constitutional violations.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on the explicit language of the Illinois Election Code, particularly sections 24C-15 and 22-9.1. These sections delineate the procedures and limitations of post-election audits:

  • Section 24C-15: Mandates a five percent audit of electronic voting equipment, specifying that discrepancies must result only in a written report without altering the official election results.
  • Section 22-9.1: Governs discovery procedures pertaining to election results, explicitly prohibiting the use of audit results to modify official counts.

The court emphasized that, under Illinois law, regardless of any fraudulent activities during the audit, the audit's outcomes have no bearing on the final election results. Consequently, any alleged misconduct within the audit process does not translate into a violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional right to vote.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for election law, particularly concerning the integrity and limitations of post-election audits. By affirming that state-mandated audit procedures cannot influence election outcomes, the decision:

  • Reinforces the sanctity and finality of official election results as determined by statutory provisions.
  • Limits the avenues through which allegations of fraud in audit processes can be escalated to federal courts.
  • Emphasizes adherence to state-defined processes, preventing isolated incidents of misconduct from undermining election legitimacy at the federal level.

Future litigants alleging electoral misconduct will need to navigate these statutory boundaries carefully, potentially seeking remedies through state courts rather than federal constitutional claims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Five Percent Audit

This is a post-election audit required by Illinois law, where five percent of the electronic voting machines are randomly selected for manual verification against their electronic records. The purpose is to ensure the accuracy of the electronic counts without altering the final election results.

42 U.S.C. § 1983

A federal statute that allows individuals to sue state government officials for civil rights violations. It is commonly used to address abuses of constitutional rights by those acting under state authority.

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Declaratory relief involves a court's determination of the legal rights of parties, while injunctive relief refers to court orders requiring parties to do or refrain from specific actions. In this case, plaintiffs sought both to clarify legal standings and to prevent future alleged misconduct.

Conclusion

The affirmation of the district court's dismissal in Shipley v. Chicago Board of Election Commissioners underscores the robust framework established by Illinois law to govern post-election audits. By delineating clear boundaries within which audits operate, the court has fortified the integrity of the electoral process, ensuring that final results remain unaffected by subsequent reviews. This decision serves as a critical reference point for future cases involving election integrity and the scope of federal remedies in the context of state-governed electoral procedures.